On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Heiko Seeberger < heiko.seeber...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Jim, > > 2009/11/17 Jim Barrows <jim.barr...@gmail.com> > >> >> The behavior of a method, it's implementation is part of the contract I >> have with the library. >> > > Behavior yes, as long as agreed part of the contract. Implementation no. > Implementation is not behavior? > > >> So, just because you, or some committee ... >> > > Not a committe, but the developer of the library. > I don't care who. Somebody, who isn't me, is deciding whether the impact to me is is minor (ie 0.0.1), major (ie 0.1.0), or catastrophic (ie 1.0.0). > >> ... think that the change is "minor", I still have to thoroughly test >> everything that uses your library. >> > > Did you hear me saying "Don't test your app when a required library changes > its version"? > Yes, actually your attempting to use a scheme to tell me what I need to test. If you agree that with every change, I need to test those changes, then why complicate everybody's lives with number schemes? Because whether a someone uses the OSGI complex scheme of numbers, or Ubuntus year.month scheme, it still means I have to read the change list, and test the things that changed. > > >> As to your "As Lift also is to support OSGi (already some support in >> place) it would be beneficial to stick to this version policy" comment. I >> counter with "Lift works on Ubuntu it would be beneficial to stick to this >> version policy" and of course "Lift runs on scala it would be beneficial to >> stick to this version policy", or better yet "Lift runs on the Java VM it >> would be beneficial to stick to this version policy." All three of my >> arguments have far more to do with Lift running then OSGI does. >> > > If you are not interested in OSGi or Lift's OSGi support, then just ignore > it. As far as I know neither Ubuntu, nor Scala, nor the JVM care about > Lift's version number or version strategy. But OSGi does! > You miss my point. My point was that the argument you make is useless. > > >> That's what I really need to know, >> > > Please accept that other folks might have different needs. > You cut the context. However.... Everyone needs to know that things changed. And they need to know what changed. The OSGI scheme attempts to tell the developer how severe the change is, without knowing how the developer is using the library. That's useless. -- James A Barrows -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=.
